T
TheExorcist
Guest
Spot on my friend! No room for reason! Our asst pastor has told me he believes it was an evil spirit.
- Status
G
gazelam
Guest
“one in unity” is a poorly constructed phrase on my part. Elder Holland expressed the idea better than I. I appreciate the insight regarding the Catholic view of John 17:21-23 regarding a disciple becoming consubstantial with Christ. However, here’s a better explanation of my point that John 17:21-23 supports an LDS view. John 17:21 begins by saying “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…”. In order to support the “traditional” view with this partial verse, one would have to believe that Christ wants His disciples to become consubstantially one with each other, not just with Christ. So that SteveVH hopefully becomes consubstantial with lax16 and Porknpie hopefully becomes consubstantial with TexanKnight. (Sorry, Porknpie…) If consubstantial is how the Father and Christ are one then consubstantial with each other is how Christ prays that the believers will become. And which of the believers take Christ’s physical body aspect of the consubstantial union and which believers take on the Father’s immaterial nature (not exactly sure how Catholics describe the Father’s physical essence)? Clearly from John 17:21 Christ prays that His followers become one with each other as Christ and the Father are one. Is Christ praying that His disciples become consubstantial with each other?
Also, Latter-day Saints are grateful for all the sacrifice that went into preserving and bringing forth the Bible.
G
gazelam
Guest
And Stephen clearly saw something that wasn’t the traditional Trinity when he was stoned.
Acts 7:55, 56 (KJV)
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
G
gazelam
Guest
:tiphat:
I can’t say that the exact phrase is in the B of M, but the concept is clearly there.
3 Nephi 11:10,11
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.
3 Nephi 11:32
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
3 Nephi 11:35, 36
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
3 Nephi 12:19
19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
G
gazelam
Guest
Receiving a confirmation of the truth via the Holy Ghost is a Biblical concept.
1 Corinthians 12:3 (KJV) Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
An “interior experience” as you call is the only way to know of Christ’s divinity according to the Bible. That too can neither be proven nor disproven by others.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Gazelam,
Stephen has a vision and is echoing back to the words of Daniel chapter 7…letting the religious leaders know that Jesus truly is the Messianic King as he said he was during his life on earth. It’s at this point that they attacked and stoned Stephen.
13 As the visions during the night continued, I saw coming with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man.*
When he reached the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him,
14 He received dominion, splendor, and kingship;
all nations, peoples and tongues will serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.
No problem with the Trinity. Jesus is the Word…read John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Raising yourself from the dead is more than a parlor trick. Say one where you put some rocks in a hat and pretend to translate ancient plates of gold, that no one has ever seen.
P
pablope
Guest
Hmm…no…the Bible shows a way to test the spirit:
1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
S
SteveVH
Guest
What do you think the word “communion” means? Yes, through the Eucharist we are in communion with Christ which means that we are also in communion with each other. We become “one body”, the “Body of Christ”.
*"“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…”. *
This is exactly what happens at a Catholic Mass. We become one because Jesus is in us and we are in Him, just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. In fact, because there is only one God, when we consume the body and blood of Christ, both the Father and the Holy Spirit are present as well. This is the most incredible gift of a loving God; to come to us in such a humble manner, under the appearance of bread and wine, that we may consume him so that he may consume us.
Through Christ’s sacramental presence we become truly one with Christ and with each other. Not only do we consume his body and blood but also his soul and divinity. Some do not get his body and others his soul. We receive Christ whole and entire, both physically (in his glorified state) and spiritually. God dwells within us and we become living tabernacles.
Even in its corrupted state?
E
eddie_too
Guest
thanks everyone for your replies to my question about how mormons would respond to the question of how they know that entity that provided joseph smith with the book of mormon did not come from lucifer.
gazelam,
i would only say to the practice of relying on a burning in the heart, that too could come from lucifer and/or his minions. how do mormons know the burning in the heart comes from the Holy Spirit?
most certainly, lucifer is highly motivated to use whatever weapons at his disposal to lead souls away from Jesus.
i have heard of people justifying fornication and adultery because of a burning in their hearts; or by saying, the heart wants what the heart wants.
gazelam,
i would only say to the practice of relying on a burning in the heart, that too could come from lucifer and/or his minions. how do mormons know the burning in the heart comes from the Holy Spirit?
most certainly, lucifer is highly motivated to use whatever weapons at his disposal to lead souls away from Jesus.
i have heard of people justifying fornication and adultery because of a burning in their hearts; or by saying, the heart wants what the heart wants.
E
eddie_too
Guest
it is important to always remember that only the Son became man, i.e. had a physical body.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are totally and only spirits and accordingly are only perceived by the soul.
as a result, St. Stephen could have a vision in which he literally saw the Incarnate Body of the Son standing metaphorically or allegorically at the right hand of the Father. there is no logical or reasonable requirement to interpret St. Stephen’s words to mean that he saw the Incarnate Word literally standing at the right hand of the human body of the Father.
what we do know is that for the entire first 1800 years of christianity, from the time of the first Pentecost until the time of joseph smith, there is no christian theological teaching, thought or writing that claimed Jesus’` Father ever had a human body.
finally, to know that Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture makes it impossible to understand and interpret Sacred Scripture correctly without having reliable access to Sacred Tradition.
of course, the entire concept of Sacred Tradition was virtually and probably entirely a foreign concept to Joseph Smith.
also thanks to Rebecca for pointing out that Catholic faith in Jesus does not rely solely on a burning in the believer’s heart, but is also connected to the entire history of christianity. that history includes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, apostolic succession, writings of the Church Fathers, lives of the saints, the historical development of dogma, such as written theological treatises on the seven sacraments, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Pentecost Sunday, ecclesiology, etc. etc. etc.
to reduce proof of truth to a mere burning in the chest is correctly classified as foolish because it ignores everything else that goes into human knowledge, understanding and experience.
reality teaches us that conversion of any type typically involves intense physical and emotional responses. so it is safe and necessary to conclude that intense physcial and emotional responses have no significant relationship to whether or not the thing in which one places their faith as a result of a conversion experience is true.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are totally and only spirits and accordingly are only perceived by the soul.
as a result, St. Stephen could have a vision in which he literally saw the Incarnate Body of the Son standing metaphorically or allegorically at the right hand of the Father. there is no logical or reasonable requirement to interpret St. Stephen’s words to mean that he saw the Incarnate Word literally standing at the right hand of the human body of the Father.
what we do know is that for the entire first 1800 years of christianity, from the time of the first Pentecost until the time of joseph smith, there is no christian theological teaching, thought or writing that claimed Jesus’` Father ever had a human body.
finally, to know that Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture makes it impossible to understand and interpret Sacred Scripture correctly without having reliable access to Sacred Tradition.
of course, the entire concept of Sacred Tradition was virtually and probably entirely a foreign concept to Joseph Smith.
also thanks to Rebecca for pointing out that Catholic faith in Jesus does not rely solely on a burning in the believer’s heart, but is also connected to the entire history of christianity. that history includes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, apostolic succession, writings of the Church Fathers, lives of the saints, the historical development of dogma, such as written theological treatises on the seven sacraments, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Pentecost Sunday, ecclesiology, etc. etc. etc.
to reduce proof of truth to a mere burning in the chest is correctly classified as foolish because it ignores everything else that goes into human knowledge, understanding and experience.
reality teaches us that conversion of any type typically involves intense physical and emotional responses. so it is safe and necessary to conclude that intense physcial and emotional responses have no significant relationship to whether or not the thing in which one places their faith as a result of a conversion experience is true.
E
eddie_too
Guest
gazelam,
what is your definition of the word consubstantial? we have to agree on the definition of the terms we use before we can effectively use them in our attempts to communicate with each other.
what is your definition of the word consubstantial? we have to agree on the definition of the terms we use before we can effectively use them in our attempts to communicate with each other.
E
eddie_too
Guest
gazelam,
to expound a little on my post where i asked for your definition of consubstantial.
in the passage in the gospel of john where Jesus prays that His followers be one as He and the Father are one, it is incorrect to think of the oneness as being the Oneness of the Three Pesons in the Most Holy Trinity. that is the oneness catholics mean when they use the term consubstantial.
however, in the passage in John, Jesus is referring to the oneness that exists between His human nature and His Divine Nature. catholics do not refer to that relationship as being consubstantial. the theological term i have heard used by catholic theologians to describe the relationship of Jesus’ human nature to His Divine nature is “hypostatic union”. the hypostatic union is a perfect union of the human and the Divine, but is not the consubtantial union that exists between the members of the Trinity.
it is not my intention to insult you, but the distinction above displays the ignorance under which your understanding of Sacred Scripture labors. catholics have been discussing the theology underlying our faith for nearly two thousand years. the foundation of catholics’ theological discussions are the personal teachings Jesus gave to the twelve apostled during the three years of His public ministry. only those twelve men received the fullness of the Lord’s teachings. that is why only the traditional understandings of His teachings that they passed on provide a sufficient basis upon which to rely in interpreting Sacred Scripture.
Sacred Scripture is quite clear in telling us that Jesus taught the apostles things He did not reveal to others during His public life. that is an essential element, although not the sole element, needed to correctly understand the theology underlying apostolic succession.
to expound a little on my post where i asked for your definition of consubstantial.
in the passage in the gospel of john where Jesus prays that His followers be one as He and the Father are one, it is incorrect to think of the oneness as being the Oneness of the Three Pesons in the Most Holy Trinity. that is the oneness catholics mean when they use the term consubstantial.
however, in the passage in John, Jesus is referring to the oneness that exists between His human nature and His Divine Nature. catholics do not refer to that relationship as being consubstantial. the theological term i have heard used by catholic theologians to describe the relationship of Jesus’ human nature to His Divine nature is “hypostatic union”. the hypostatic union is a perfect union of the human and the Divine, but is not the consubtantial union that exists between the members of the Trinity.
it is not my intention to insult you, but the distinction above displays the ignorance under which your understanding of Sacred Scripture labors. catholics have been discussing the theology underlying our faith for nearly two thousand years. the foundation of catholics’ theological discussions are the personal teachings Jesus gave to the twelve apostled during the three years of His public ministry. only those twelve men received the fullness of the Lord’s teachings. that is why only the traditional understandings of His teachings that they passed on provide a sufficient basis upon which to rely in interpreting Sacred Scripture.
Sacred Scripture is quite clear in telling us that Jesus taught the apostles things He did not reveal to others during His public life. that is an essential element, although not the sole element, needed to correctly understand the theology underlying apostolic succession.
G
gazelam
Guest
I’m not sure how the reference to Daniel justifies a trinitiarian interpretation of Acts 7:55, 56. Whether Daniel was echoed or not, Stephen saw TWO beings (Jesus standing on the right hand of God).
G
gazelam
Guest
I don’t disagree about testing a spirit. Latter-day Saints study Paul’s writing. But you didn’t refute my point.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
and how does that show there is no Trinity? Especially when the Book of Mormon TEACHES the Trinity
S
SteveVH
Guest
This verse could apply to anyone who says “Jesus is Lord”.
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion at all. If we consider the Bible to be at all historical (which it is), and we consider the witnesses to the Life of Jesus and find them to be credible (which we do), then we can conclude through reason that Jesus was divine. This is based upon his words, his miracles, and most especially his resurrection.
This does not mean that a Catholic is lacking in his interior life in the least. When we pray; when we experience the sacraments, especially Eucharist and Reconciliation, the presence of God within us is unmistakeable. But one who believes that he is hearing the voice of God had better go through the process of discernment. There is more than one voice out there. We have the voice of our own desires (“I want it to be true”); the voice of the enemy who prowls the earth seeking whom he may devour; the voice of our peers, echoing inside of us, urging us to believe; and the voice of the Holy Spirit. One should not consider the truth of the message until major discernment has been done and from what I can tell, this is not a process through which Mormons usually go when deciding whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.
G
gazelam
Guest
I appreciate the additional insight provided. The point I attempted to make earlier is that for two believers to become one as Christ and the Father are one under the trinitarian view, one of the believers needs to have his own divine immaterial essence that dwells within the tabernacle of the other believer. Believer A needs to dwell within Believer B, or vice versa. What you described is Christ dwelling within both Believer A and Believer B.
Most certainly! LDS Sunday School cycles through LDS scripture every four years. The Bible gets two of the four years.Even in its corrupted state?
S
SteveVH
Guest
I don’t know how you can become more one with another than to become “one body”. We are not only one with Christ, on an indivdual basis, but one with each other as well and together we are the Bride of Christ. We must be in communion with each other in order to be one body, which is accomplished through communion with Christ.
But you do believe it is corrupt and that it was corrupted by the same Church that determined its canonicity. That’s kind of like thanking someone for a half spoiled sandwich.
- Status